Tuesday, 13 June 2017

Enthusiastic Remainers have been quick to jump on the election result as their latest opportunity to mould the UK's departure from the EU.

The various lobby groups, including former ministers still close to some in government, have been whirring with chatter and tactical planning about how to get their voices heard. There are ideas about commissions or "neddies" - groups of advisers from business and all political parties that met in years gone by.

Even senior Tories like the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, one of their few success stories at the moment, told us yesterday "it can't just be a Tory Brexit". On first hearing, that is a staggering thing to hear from Tory lips.

9
comments:

As with below,the explanation that the FT has suggested to square May's Brexit with the evident centrism of he first speech in Downing Street, is that she wanted to increase her majority so she could afford to lose the Tory Brextremists and still stay in power while selling out Brexit more or less completely.Now she doesn't have to bother because she can come back from the negotiations ,(she seems to want to suggest that she's going to spend two years in Brussels), with a Brexit so soft it will be like we're still in and do the bloodied but unbowed number: I fought as hard as I could but with all these remainers and a small majority this is all I could get.The numptiest Brextremists will forgive her and she can get on with a 50's revival programme. Nice to her of Neddies again!

There is only Brexit (reverting to being a sovereign nation) or EU style limited sovereignty (continuing to take our laws from the EU , not being in charge of our immigration policy , supremacy of EU courts , EU arrest warrants rather than extradition hearings etc) .

As soon as I started hearing about "soft" and "hard" , it was obvious it was a confidence trick and that(at best) Brexit would happen in name only .

What upsets me is that the Remoaners are happy to throw away our demonstrably superior common law , jury trials , habeas corpus , inalienable God given rights for political fashion .

S, allowing free movement of EU nationals is not really "not being in charge of our immigration policy", all it means is that we have a policy of letting in people from the EU, whilst doing what we like WRT the rest of the world. I'm not sure that any of the other things that you list are part of the "four freedoms".Now that the Tories no longer have to pander to the xenophobes to win an election or a referendum, they can drop their opposition to free movement and remove a major sticking point to the negotiations about remaining in the single market, which is the bit of the EU we want to keep, whilst dumping all the fedophile crap.

@B Less of the euphemisms: the xenophobe element in this country is fascist. It normally doesn't vote because the established parties don't give its nasty supporters a look-in.In the good old mixed economy days, Oswald Mosley's and Enoch Powell's efforts to rouse the racist mob were looked on with disdain by the Tory Party. Then David Cameron gave them a fantastically ill-thought-out referendum (by A Level standards) and they were in on the ground floor.The Tories will have to get them penned up again: they're not Labour's responsibility.The fascist scrotes are dependent on homeownerism.Not being keen on taking part in a productive economy, they do not support raising wage levels.By contrast Germany does well in the EU because Germans fear property prices getting out of hand. If, as MW says, British Capitalism is so wonderfully resilient, it should be able to adapt to a German system where production is paramount not sitting on you arse waiting for property prices to go up.

DBCR, British capitalism may be able to adapt, but the British, never. One of the main differences between nearly all the other countries in Europe and the British is the British obsession with land and the countryside: everyone aspires to being a member of the landed gentry and live off rents. In all the other countries, the countryside is for hicks and peasants. Anyone who is anyone aspires to live in the cities, preferably the capital. (Sweeping generalisation, but true for all that, IMHO.)